That's not how metaphors work. When you're the head of state, you have unique access and influence that others need. You become an unavoidable actor in the networks of power that manage the worlds resources. Your access will go deeper into those networks than by any other means.
> It's just going to get magnified too, as technologies dominate everything. The government can't keep up.
That's not how the world works. Technology is simply an extension of our will, we fashion it to govern us, but it can never replace us. The "private sector" is just another branch of governance and exists purely in legal forms. I do believe technology can be a liberating force and that we can design a system of incentives that reduces the need for human dependencies but it would be absolute terror to remove us from the instrumentation of the world.
edit- can't reply to you below so I'll reply here: AGI is just the latest fashion, it's still technology which means it still extends from our will. Technology is an ancient human practice, digging into the world with our understanding and forming tools to manage it. It's as old as clothing or written language. That we can replicate or automate our will doesn't negate that our will is being represented and that everything must conform to our needs or be taken as damage. It's fully possible to exterminate ourselves by removing our role from the universe but this isn't something I advocate.
In both cases you have the same data loss problem. Without downvotes you can't separate uninteresting from harmful and with downvotes you can't separate harmful from low quality which is why voting etiquette is recommended:
> If someone spends the time to make an honest effort to answer a question, but it's not that great an answer, just don't upvote them
That means voting etiquette is part of the vote mechanic itself; a critical piece that makes the technology work rests in the minds of its users. If you've spent any time on Reddit, it's obvious this is a common source for trouble as a person seeing an up/down binary will naturally think this is just a personal value assessment. This is amplified by the fact downvoting has actual effects, lowering the visibility of a contribution encourages downvotes to hide content the user thought was poor quality.
This is why FB reactions happened. A mechanism intended to reduce noise has to guard against data loss to some degree or the mechanism itself produces noise, as it is with lossy audio formats.
so a mission to make the world more open and connected is being joined with a mission to figure out how the first mission made the world more closed and disconnected. snark aside, it's good to see, but if he's interested there's some very good analysis on root causes already.
> you alienate a lot of people who might otherwise sympathize with you
shading the truth might win people over but only those who are willing to turn their minds off because they were offended, only those more interested in changes that will let them go back to sitting right in their feelings. you'll see this most evidently on the web where a person feels there's work to be done only so long as they feel they need to correct someone, as soon as everyone feels the record has been set straight it goes right back to the kind of complacency that generates the kinds of statements you dislike so much. the same people who talk about "bleeding heart" "libtards" hung up on their feelings are the same emotionally inept lot that don't see how their own feelings for a flag gets in the way of truth; that a nation is not a monolith, that we are both wonderful and terrible, and that no change can come from a state of denial. "We're broken" is the same as "We're not perfect" but denial clings to the phrasing that lets us believe perfection is within reach.
I sleep between 3 and 11 hours which sounds strange until I mention I also don't go to sleep every night or live within the confines of any given time zone... wait that still sounds strange. I'm strange.
hold up, I agree with you but you can't say "for every X there's Y" because that's not at all true. "it happens on both sides" is a far cry from "both sides do this about the same amount" not to mention "both" itself implies there are only two sides and everything is flat.
It's about probability, expectations, and complexity. A status quo candidate with a lifetime of political occupancy and a finely tuned brand of political strategy is simply more predictable; good or bad, the creation of a plan of action is less complex. An unconventional candidate with shifting priorities, an affinity for stirring tensions, challenging long-held principles of the democratic system is going to require a contextual kind of defense which is infinitely more complex.
ahh, yes, hacker news. so full of curiosity and inviting critique. I'm with you on giving yourselves an island but ya'll would never stay there, the visibility invites the validation you crave.
I'm not sure if you're responding to me or just adding your perspective but each of those points can be summarized as "not necessarily" and ya, this is complex stuff, lots of possibility.
I agree with everything except that first point because legitimacy isn't the problem worth solving. Striking the right balance in governing tools and keeping interdependent systems interoperable as they mature are problems worth solving which this works toward. Arguing on grounds of legitimacy would have failed to see Wikipedia as a citable source or Facebook as an election debate host 15 years ago. So the time from no credibility to global legitimacy is at least faster than a generation can reach the age to vote.
edit- Also, keep in mind there are billions of new humans coming behind you that have no deep feelings about any of the things you think about. Good or bad. They hold none of the complexity of this world in their minds that you use to navigate now with minimal effort ("How does a bill become a law?"). Some revolutions are born from the generations that see leap frogging as an easier and better way forward than repairing the old model built for a world that doesn't exist anymore.
The counterintuitive bit you're pointing out is an artifact of law, not their political opinion. If you don't care about copyright you use a license that protects you from copyright claims while giving rights to others. Companies that rely on public domain or open source software can't legally use the code until it has a suitable license, the absence of a license being that the owner still holds those rights. So the only way to hold their position is to do what they're doing. More broadly they're also saying they don't believe any of this shit is enforceable so they denigrate their own license but provide it for your sake.
I feel like this is the point that's being lost. It's not that it's AI, it could have been a paint brush, but whatever the tool there needs to be a connection between the artist and their works. The current state of AI largely erases that connection. That he mentions we're losing confidence in ourselves I feel backs this up, that we're engaged in the act of replacing ourselves from the design of the world with not enough thought in how we're negotiating our future selves.
The tech crowd are looking at this as an old artist who doesn't like future tools when I think it's meant to be deeper and more a critique on how we use our tools. An animator in touch with their disabled friend may come to tears in their work and create moments that connect with the audience on a deeper level because of it while AI will only pass over those moments in microseconds.
Proof of Burn in the Bitcoin world means making up an address (such as "1CounterpartyXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX...") which is essentially impossible to ever be associated with an actual key so there's no chance of recovering the funds sent there.
Proof of Burn in the Ethereum world means writing a contract and publishing the source code such that it can be verified to match the contract address living on the chain. A minimal proof of burn would be this "contract Burn {}" an empty contract that does nothing but receive funds, can never be destroyed, is controlled by nobody and all of this can be verified publicly.
The difference is subtle but important.
edit- btw, yes you can also send funds to address 0x0 but this still leaves open the possibility of a hard fork giving new meaning to that address in the future. my example is meant to be a demo of the difference mostly.
Why are you worried people will think you're immature for sharing something interesting that has cursing in it? Immaturity is to be distracted by fuck to the point where you take to the comments and only contribute that you empathize before policing their chosen form of expression.
my comment was meant to negate the idea that a person can not oppose aspects of something if they at all partake in that something. engaging in capitalism -- creating a product, buying food, owning an iPhone -- is a decent indicator for how a person would like to live but that doesn't mean the system that enables their current lifestyle is the one they would choose to participate in.
> "Skill in software engineering, like skill in any subject, is not cultivated by limiting yourself to a narrow set of knowledge and challenges."
Except you've done exactly this by selecting tree structures, something you find intuitive, and using it as a measurement for everything else. If you hire like this you will be successful in surrounding yourself with others who think just like you. Maybe that's a strength for the product you're building but it's a strength achieved by limiting yourself to a narrow set of knowledge.
perhaps the problem can be avoided with an alternative approach. maybe a decentralized design that determines a name by algorithm rather than decree, walk the users social graph, let people rename the world in a way that is fixed to their perspective regardless of device.
imo the problem stems from reputable authority credentials not keeping up with the rate of change. it's why we have a situation where github is a more reputable authority for what you do than a resume. you could look at this and say the problem is we need to return to the way we used to do things or you can look at this and say we need a new way to credential people. I'm looking at decentralized reputation, set up the new credential system to keep pace with the rate of change.
I'm okay with tolerating verbal abuse as a gesture of compassion but no fucking way should we characterize this as an ideal. I say it that way to prove I'm not talking about offensive language, if someone said any of my code was brain damaged, I would take it as a personal attack. It's not emphasis, it's cruelty.
This is very true though I'm including the social infrastructure. Silicon Valley, NYC, D.C. will have infrastructural value, trusted pathways, despite what anybody does. It can shrink and grow but unlikely to happen fast as there's a practical cap to how fast humans will move or accept changes.
I would consider WoW gold and Bitcoin to be mere tokens for the virtual economy. You can bind spatial terms to these tokens but those terms can be as optional as they are incidental to the exchange, we generally don't care where an exchange originates or terminates. Businesses trading internationally using ships and handshakes created the global economy, individuals trading internationally using sites and tokens created the virtual economy.
I do. You can't underestimate the value of existing infrastructure. Which is the same reason I would say the US, China, and others will never be able to compete with the emergent virtual economy. Everyone is expecting the next dominant power to look like the previous dominant powers, but they never do.